The key to stable governance: happy people

 

The key to stable governance is happy people

 

Yesterday, I reported on an attack on an innocent German woman by an angry “refugee,” showing how German women now have real reason to fear riding on commuter trains, given the large numbers of Muslim men now riding along with them. Every German knows that Merkel is to blame for the mass immigration that brought these men to Germany.

Thus, today we read in the German press that the AdF, a popular and growing anti-Merkel and anti-immigration party, is making major strides in the state of Mecklenburg-Pomerania, once part of communist East Germany. Those of us who have travelled in the “East Zone” and in the Soviet Union can more easily see what is going on today in East-West geopolitics. (BTW, I suspect that if I had been unable to speak the languages spoken there, I never would have grasped these things. I say that with all the humility possible — under the circumstances). Some can even see the systemic errors of their entire Establishment and the sheeple who support it.

A few days ago I saw a simply pitiful post by a pseudo-intellectual Neocon apologist at AIM (Cliff Kincaid’s site) stating that Putin was using “Marxist dialectics” in his politics. He was trying to rebut a post of mine and said “you don’t understand Marxian dialectics.”

No, my dears, that is wrong on two counts. First off, Putin does not use Marxian dialectics. Russia is well past that childish phase, which we are still mired down in here in the West. Secondly, I do know enough about Marxian dialectics and Putin to be absolutely certain of that. In an interview, Putin was once asked what his ideology was and he said he didn’t have one, and that he merely faces each problem as it comes up and works hard to solve it. His managerial style makes it clear that he was telling the truth. But Westerners are trained by their keepers never to pay a bit of attention to what Putin says or does, insisting that he – the only world leader who tells the truth – is lying. And of course, he speaks Russian (gasp!). This attitude is part of our government training and can best be described as Neocon – the new Nazism. All their lives, most Westerners have seen politicians deceiving, lying and betraying and have been conditioned to believe that such is the human condition. It is not. It is the Marxian dialectic at work ramming radical Enlightenment ideology (typified by Voltaire’s writings as opposed to those of the more moderate branch of the Enlightenment) down our throats. Politicians are absolutely convinced that they are morally superior to the little people because they are imbued with a fatally flawed ideology that originated over 300 years ago but is still thought of as the undisputed superior way that must be enforced by superior beings.

The shocking fact is that the only region still using the Marxian dialect is the woefully failing West, and that would be all major countries in the West, which are puppets that basically just follow, zombie-like, Washington’s dictates (no, my dears, the UN does not control the US, as many have been taught to dutifully believe. It is the other way around).

The Marxian dialectic is a method of persuasion by stealth and deception that was refined, for example, into the Delphi technique in the US. Although it is only a technique and could theoretically be employed for good, its aim for well over a century has been to overcome logic and reason so that people will accept things that they would not accept spontaneously. That would be, by definition, unpleasant things. The Bible calls this putting good for evil and evil for good. (All of this was concisely put into perspective back in 2009 by Cassandra Goldman, here.)

Despite what you are being taught by Neoconservatives of both political parties (Hillary is the arch-Neocon), nothing like this failed dialectic-based philosophy is being written about and studied in today’s Russia by major Kremlin decision makers, who have adopted a unique principle of their own, namely, a common sense technique of governance that can be boiled down to: avoid giving the people pain and make them as happy as possible. The decision makers stumbled across this technique because ordinary Russians, initially deceived by the dialectic fol-de-rol described above, were so profoundly unhappy that they spontaneously rebelled against it. (While in Cracow in the early 70s, I lived with a family where the daughter was a physician. I asked her how much a doctor makes in Poland and she said it was the equivalent of $30/mo, a salary impossible to live on. When I asked how she got by, she laughed and said “by selling doctor’s excuses”). At some point, vast numbers of workers throughout the Soviet Union and its satellite states had stopped going to their jobs, and it became impossible to discipline them because they were too numerous. (Note that the West is on the cusp of such a quiet revolution. Brexit is the best example but more are on the way. This is because the pain has become unbearable for many, like our German lady correspondent in the commuter train full of mean Muslims).

The simple fact. which most Americans are trained not to notice or believe, is that Soviet decision makers had found the limits of authoritarianism and were forced to find a new way.

The fact that Putin has had around 80% popularity for years is a clear sign that he is succeeding in making people happy.

The fact that Congressional approval is always below 10% in the US is a sign that Americans are deeply unhappy, and we all know we are. The only reason presidents have a higher popularity than this is because they have succeeded in convincing the gullible public that they are working hard to overcome the bad influence in congress, in Wall Street, and in whichever is the opposition party, and that prosperity (eg, recovery) is just around the corner.

There is no name for this new political philosophy discovered by the Russians because it is based on reason, logic and common sense so it’s been around forever. But Western pols shun it because it is not pseudo-intellectual enough for them (they can’t bear the thought that they are not far superior to the masses in terms of intellect and morality). Meanwhile, the elitist West is busy poring over philosophy books, writing new Libertarian, rightwing, Neocon and liberal tripe to find the solution that is right in front of our noses.

So why is Mecklenburg looking to the AdF party? Because, surprise, this party actually wants to give the people what they want, without any underhanded tricks. And the people there have lived under communism so they are not as easily fooled as the brainwashed sheeple in the rest of Germany.

Many Americans believe that is also what Trump wants to do, and that would seem to be the case a priori, although it is not always easy to tell what Trump is thinking or if he is thinking what he is saying. (But unlike Neocon Hillary, he certainly does not seem, by all appearances, to want more war, especially with Russia).

I got the story about Mecklenburg turning against Merkel from the German-language site of Der Spiegel.

Now while the Soviets and the rest of the East bloc were forced, by much pain and suffering, to admit that the old Marxist experiment could not work, the West is still a babe in the woods whose “leaders” believe explicitly in the Marxian-dialectic technique, not necessarily as a method of persuading the masses, but as an end in itself, namely persuading them that everything they hate is good and common sense cannot be trusted.

Most of us are so brainwashed – not only by the Left but also by the Russia-hating (racist) Neocons and nominal “conservatives,” who approach problems in a purely legalistic way (like the Pharisees in Jesus’ day)  – that we can’t see the obvious, namely, that the only lasting and authentic value that will enable a political body to govern in the long term is happiness of the people. If the people are happy with what the governing body is doing, that body can maintain its power over them indefinitely. If not, that power is fleeting and doomed to pass away sooner or later.

So how have we allowed ourselves to be so grossly misled? There are many facets to the process by which we are deceived, but one very important factor is that our “leaders” – on both sides of the imaginary aisle – are telling us or suggesting to us that Russia and Putin are the ones who are deceiving us and that whatever they are doing is wrong or evil, and therefore, we must do the opposite. Pretty convincing if one is a dimwit.

Incredibly, we keep falling for this malarkey, keep doing the wrong thing and pursuing failed policies, and like lemmings, are literally committing mass suicide, all the while thinking that a politician on the “other” side – be it left, libertarian, middle, vegetarian or right – will save us.

What we fail to realize is that we desperately need to be saved from ourselves – ie, from our brainwashed selves. And hence, we must be our own saviors.

To accomplish this, we must simply open our eyes and see again, using the common sense we have been taught to eschew. Common sense that the God we are supposed to not believe in, gave us.

 

Hegelian dialectic and its influence in the West:

https://alettertothetimes.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/the-hegelian-dialectic-the-delphi-technique-and-moral-relativism/

 

 

 

Why Washington and Wall Street support Wahhabism

Why Washington and Wall Street support Wahhabism

 

by Don Hank

 

A reader of my commentaries sent this link to a story of a large American man confronting a Saudi in a US city who was raving on in defense of ISIS. This shows, among other things, that radical Islamists feel comfortable defending ISIS because they know the US government does not sincerely oppose the group.

I keep reminding readers that 92% of Saudi citizens polled have said that ISIS represents the “spirit of Islam.” That means we are not fighting just a rogue government but in fact an entire populace that would die for this fanatical idea. The Saudi fanatic is representative of an entire nation that loves ISIS, hates America and receives the full support of our wretched government.

Now Turkey is starting to run along with the Saudis and adopting Wahhabism.

Now this would be horrible but manageable if it were not for the fact that the US government has wholeheartedly supported the Saudis.

IF YOU NEVER READ ANOTHER THING IN YOUR LIFE, READ THE ARTICLE LINKED BELOW TO SEE WHY THE US GOVERNMENT IS SUPPORTING AND EVEN FUNDING THIS FANATICAL RELIGION BEHIND THE SCENES WITH ITS WAR POLICIES, PRETENDING THAT ITS WARS ARE DOING GOOD FOR MANKIND, DEMOCRACY AND ALL THAT ABSOLUTE NONSENSE. MANY OF YOU HAVE READ THIS BUT MANY HAVE NOT AND SOME HAVE READ IT AND THEIR MINDS SNAPPED BACK TO NORMALCY. READ THIS CAREFULLY:

http://laiglesforum.com/how-the-petrodollar-perpetuates-islamic-terror/3216.htm

After reading this, you will stop thinking the Washington Satanists are just crazy or inept. They know exactly what they are doing. They are propping up a dollar that, without the Saudis’ charging ONLY US dollars for their oil, would have melted down a long time ago thanks to the Fed’s seemingly insane policy of printing dollars unbacked by anything and our government’s frenetic give-away policies.

The Fed knows the Saudis have teflonized the dollar and it can’t lose its value. (BTW, if it were not for the Saudi support of the dollar, the Fed would be brought into line and the US would be able to grow its real economy again so don’t think for one minute that this artificial life support for the USD is a good thing. It only allows your government to control you and keep you poor while making its cronies rich). How do I know your “government” has made this pact with the devil and supports the spread of Wahhabism in exchange for a sound petrodollar?

The answer is so obvious and easy you will kick yourself for not figuring it out a long time ago.

Since Sunni Wahhabism teaches that the world should only be inhabited by Sunni Muslims of the most radical kind (like the chap in the video linked above), they will not tolerate 2 kinds of governments in the Muslim world, namely:

1–secular ones, like Ghadaffi’s, Mubarak’s, Saddam Hussein’s, Assad’s, etc. Now what happened to these governments? The leaders were deposed and they are all dead, and all the Christians in those countries are now in deep peril, are dead or have emigrated, right?

WHO — what country and its allies — killed or deposed these leaders? You know the answer to that. The Saudis’ GOOD FRIEND the USA. (It was not the fault of the general public. They were kept in the dark. But today is Sunday. If you are a Christian and you continue to let this happen — by never protesting and never telling your friends and family this awful truth, how are you going to face the Lord on Judgment Day?)

2—So what is the other kind of government the Saudis will not tolerate?

Christian governments, like the Serbian government. The Serbs are Orthodox, like the Russians. Not only that, there was a large group of Muslims in Serbia, and they were being ruled by this Christian government, which refused to coddle them when they committed the usual crimes like raping Serbian women. So the government cracked down on them. Behind the scenes, the Saudis told Bill Clinton they would not tolerate this situation. So the US government, media and allies spread the tale that the Serbian government – trying to bring the Muslim trouble makers under control – were committing genocide (that is the same story they tell about Assad – a story told and promoted by the genocidal Saudis!).

So the US went into Kosovo, supported by a false story of genocide, attacked the civilian population, bombed hospitals and other infrastructure, brought down the Christian leader, and carved a new MUSLIM state out of Serbia.

Our mistreatment of the gentle beleaguered Bashar Al-Assad fits this pattern perfectly. While he is  not a Christian himself, he is a Shiite (and specifically, an Alawite), and if there is such a thing as a good Muslim, it is the Alawites, who protect and aid Christians.

Assad is in turn supported by the Russians, and this fits the puzzle, showing why the Neocons in government and media have created artificial hatred of Russia, the most Christian country in the world, which has been provoked almost beyond measure by the US government. There is nothing in any of these details that does not fit my theory to a t.

Now we come to the most ticklish part. What about Israel?

Surely you have noticed by now that the Saudi-supported ISIS has not attacked or threatened Israel? How can Wahhabis tolerate a non Muslim state in their midst?

Friends, Israel is surviving by doing what the US government is doing: going along with the Saudi strategy (both the US and Israel are dhimmis). For example, Netanyahu came to the US Congress to try to persuade them to support an Israeli airstrike on Shia Iran. This is exactly what the Saudis want. Sunni Wahhabists cannot tolerate Shiites, and Iran is almost 100% Shiite — the branch of Islam that tolerates Christianity (although you would never learn this from the Neocon press and msm). Israel does not need to fight Iran for its own purposes. In fact, almost half of Israelis do not want such a confrontation. But the Israelis know that if they please the Saudis, like good dhimmis, they will be rewarded. They also know that they will please the Neocon US government. Finally, note that the only groups and nations that oppose Israel are predominantly Shiite, the enemy of the Sunnis, esp the Wahhabis. You see how seamlessly it all fits together?

There are many more details but let us stop here and analyze what we have got:

Since GW Bush, every aspect of US foreign and military policy has coincided perfectly with the Saudi Wahhabist plan, as you can see. There were no wars or near-wars – such as the US support for the Arab Spring, which brought down or challenged secular governments – that did not benefit the Saudi plans for the spread of their fanatical religion. And likewise, you will have noticed that there were none that really truly benefited the US or its economy.

The evidence for my theory is overwhelming and those who have read my pertinent analyses here http://laiglesforum.com/how-the-petrodollar-perpetuates-islamic-terror/3216.htm and http://drrichswier.com/2014/06/15/washington-d-c-seat-caliphate/ and have absorbed them are convinced. There can be no rational argument against this theory. The only barriers to accepting it are normalcy bias and a feeling that knowing this is like eating the forbidden fruit.

But God knows I am right, and Jesus said He was the truth and the light. The Bible says that men love darkness because their deeds are evil.

Washington DC is the heart of darkness. Our job is to flood it with the truth and the light.

We have no time to lose.

 

The only solution to Washington tyranny: Restore state sovereignty

Restoring state sovereignty

Don Hank

The San Bernardino terror and the ease with which two jihadi killers entered and took up permanent residence in the US show that the US is putting US citizens in harm’s way.

Look, Folks, the solution is right in front of us and its name is state sovereignty.

Large central governments controlling large swaths of territory comprised of regions with people holding different political opinions and different cultures are an evil in themselves, because ultimately, a small group grabs all the power via “education” and the msm and produces a situation for the people that threatens life and basic freedoms.

Central government is the culprit here, and Europe is instructive. The EU has grabbed virtually total political power over European nations. Yet now that the EU is insisting on opening its borders to Muslim refugees in defiance of the will of the people and the nations, there are nations that defy them refusing to open their borders, such as initially Hungary, and later, at least partially, the Balkan countries,and now even Sweden, the country with the most open-border policy of all Europe. Under duress, European nations are rediscovering their sovereignty.

It’s not that the EU lacks laws to stop them, but it has no real power over them in cases where the exercise of such power threatens the security and liberty of the nations. They can’t enforce laws that are patently bad.

Our US states are analogous to these EU nations and their dire situation is also analogous. Our states do have a God-given right to sovereignty when the central government literally harms the citizens of the states as they are doing now with Obama’s resettlement of Syrian refugees and his policies of amnesty and open borders, all by fiat. Every American must know that no law that forces a people to harm itself can be Constitutional, regardless of whatever the Supreme Court says. The imported jihadis themselves are bringing this to light as they did in San Bernardino.

Eventually, our US states will be forced to do what Hungary and its copycats did and close their borders.

Here is what should be done now and will be done once enough Americans have died:

States that no longer wish to commit suicide will decide who enters their territory. If a person, even a US citizen, tries to enter a state, they may be denied entry on the basis of background checks. If they entered the US illegally, they may be barred — even if Washington gave them citizenship, because the state may decide whether this person was entitled to that based on the security concerns of the state. The states must be keenly aware that the Feds have overstepped their bounds as defined by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution (see below). If a person desirous of entering a state has entered the US illegally, then the state may deny them entry on those grounds, legitimately claiming that the federal government exceeded the powers granted to it under the Constitution.

Naturally, the Supreme Court will declare the state’s position un-Constitutional. However, we must examine the European model to see what can be accomplished regardless of the wishes of central-government agencies, such as the Supreme Court, which today is nothing but an interest group defending the Washington cabal and no longer represents the people of the US. Again, taking our cue from Europe, the EU government has declared, under the Schengen Agreement, that no EU nation may close its border except under specific extraordinary circumstances that threaten the country in question. However, initially, when the Hungarians closed the border, the requisites defined by Brussels may not actually have been met for this closing. However, the Hungarians, the Balkan countries and Sweden did not beg the EU dictators in Brussels for help in securing their borders or seek legal recourse. They simply resorted to their sovereign right to self-determination, bypassing the EU, and made it clear that this is the way it is going to be. Brussels made noises that they would be punished, but nothing happened. In a revolutionary move, Budapest (like the capitals of the other renegade nations that followed suit) faced down Brussels and won, at least for now, thereby restoring its sovereignty and providing for its own security. Indeed, in so doing, it caused the other above-cited nations to take notice and still others seem poised to do the same. EU officials are now warning of a potential collapse of the EU, and although dire consequences are elicited by the cunning EU officials, there could be no better solution. The same can happen in the US, with states declaring a state of emergency following a mass jihadi murder, and while the US could bluster and threaten, if the state stood firm, there would be little Washington could do short of civil war.

If a person is from a terror exporting country and has entered the US after a certain age, say, 15, then they can be denied entry into a state based on the fact that their country of origin is a terror exporting country. If it can be proved that they are not SUNNIS, then the state may allow their entry. ONLY the SUNNIS are pursuing jihad (where do we read that in our PC press? Even Trump ignores this fact).  Whether this is “constitutional” or not is irrelevant. The state must stand firm or perish. Indeed, the grounds for doing so could be a declaration of state-level emergency or even a claim that the state is at war (with jihadis, for example), whatever it takes.

The legal grounds for state-level initiatives are clear:

Article 4, Section 4 of the US Constitution

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature can-not be convened) against domestic Violence.

The clear-cut grounds for the states to ignore US statues are that the US has failed to protect the states from invasion and/or domestic violence — as it actually did by admitting the San Bernardino jihadis into our country — and if the Supreme Court makes excuses for the jihad-sponsoring government, then it too must be defied on the simple grounds that it too is blatantly ignoring the above-cited clause. A grave risk to the people of the state is always legitimate grounds to ignore federal orders because no government can demand that its own people commit suicide. Everything depends on the will of the people to survive and to know and understand their God-given rights to life and liberty.

This restoration of basic state sovereignty could either happen now at the discretion of states with security minded populations or – based on the European model — it will happen spontaneously when it becomes clear that this kind of security is vital to keep the population safe from imminent harm. For now, there are enough libertarians and leftist liberals to convince the sheeple of most states that the absurd borderless-world ideology trumps security.

But once a critical mass of terrorist murders has been reached, there will be a spontaneous and unstoppable movement to secure our people, with or without the approval of our terror-supporting federal government, and the states will be at the forefront.

Trying to replace our corrupt central government with people who actually care about our nation’s security will fail as a permanent remedy, just as it has failed in Europe. A Trump presidency may be a vital stop-gap measure, but in fact, given the fickle nature of national political sentiment, only the individual states can provide for their security in the long run.

Sooner or later we will learn the valuable lesson that the states have the right to self-determination and only need to reclaim it. Those that lose this right to the federal government do so voluntarily by surrendering their sovereignty, ie, wrongly taking federal statues and their interpretation by a corrupt and ideology-driven Supreme Court – rather than We the People — as supreme. The number of dead Americans that lead us to that awakening depends on how soon our states respond to the threat.

Do you agree or disagree with the above analysis? Post your response at the forum below.

Further reading

http://conpats.blogspot.com/2014/02/chuck-kolb-02162014.html

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/140522

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/141110

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/140522

SACRED SOVEREIGNTY MUST BE RESTORED

SACRED SOVEREIGNTY MUST BE RESTORED

American conservatives and libertarians have always stressed the importance of the US Constitution as the ruling document in our government. Indeed sticking to the Constitution could restore government. Yet, government moves farther and farther from that document, and sometimes with the aid of unwitting conservatives.For example, we have often made the mistake of supporting presidents based on machismo and swag instead of on their insistence on respect for the sovereignty of other countries. Indeed, we have in the past praised presidents for their decisiveness in invading a country without the permission of Congress prescribed in Article 1, Section 1, foolishly thinking we can have it both ways.

We have also forgotten Section 10 of that Article, which gives Congress the power to print money. We’ve had over a century to forget that. It was back in 1913 that Congress, without constitutional authorization, gave a group of fast talking bankers that power and dubbed them the Federal Reserve. These people are no more legitimate than our foreign born and foreign raised White House resident. But force of habit accustoms unwary and lazy-brained people to accept the unacceptable. We cherry pick the Constitution, accepting the parts we like and discarding the rest. Many of the people who do this proudly call themselves ‘Patriots’ or even ‘sovereign citizens.’

Friends, all of these missteps have cost us not only our liberty but also our national sovereignty, and those are 2 equal but separate concepts. Americans have been brainwashed into forgetting sovereignty and focusing on personal liberty. We base our demands for liberty on the Constitution. Yet our government denies people outside the US their liberty on a routine basis, denying the concept of sovereignty. We have the gall to blame it on God, averring that He will protect us no matter how we misbehave because we are ‘exceptional.’ (Yet the Bible shows that God does not allow the disobedient to win wars. Joshua, the great general, lost one war because one of his soldiers took forbidden booty.)

Sovereignty is as important to a nation as the heart is to the body. And the borders are the skin of the nation, without which it would bleed to death.

The answer to these problems is complex, and part of the problem with sovereignty is that the word is not mentioned explicitly in our Constitution, which was written by men who took for granted that the US would always be sovereign because anyone seeking to eliminate national sovereignty would be considered a traitor and not be able to acquire power. But they were wrong.

Sovereignty is a 2 way street. A nation must not only defend its own sovereignty but also that of other nations. Otherwise, the rest of the world will eventually gang up on the nation that denies theirs.

Just as our Constitution laid the groundwork for our national government, the Treaty of Westphalia, signed in 1648, laid the groundwork for the modern concept of national sovereignty and the mutual respect of nations for each other’s sovereignty — a concept no more nor less revolutionary, or vital, in its sphere than our Constitution is in its.

Yet, like the Constitution, that remarkable Treaty seems to be lying around gathering dust.

However, if we read what international law specialist Bernard Chalumeau says in his translated article (click on his name or the link below), we can catch a glimpse of the importance of reviving the concept of national sovereignty, not only for our own country, but for every other country as well.

The EU, as pointed out by M. Chalumeau, was an attempt to suppress the sovereignty of all European nations — with disastrous effects both economically and socially. But that action to enslave was met with an equal and opposite reaction as the northern countries in Europe started to demand a return of their sovereignty and pro-sovereignty parties gained momentum. UKIP in the UK, PVV in Holland and Front National in France.

I  dream of a day when the concept of national sovereignty is revived and people of all nations reach out to each other in an effort to keep this concept alive and to reinforce their power. And in so doing, to diminish the power of the self-appointed Masters of the Universe. M. Chalumeau and I are committed to seeing that happen some day. We will lend our support to any group founded on the principle of national sovereignty.

So far, there is Free Nations in the UK and France Libre in France. America can and should be the linchpin. Like Europe, we are straining under the burden of unlimited immigration and all the problems of crime, drugs, disease and job loss that such entails, not to mention the disastrous loss of prestige associated with our haphazard military adventures that violate the sovereignty of other nations.

A political party based on the principle of sovereignty could resonate with patriotic Americans and kick off the movement, if only Americans could understand the vital importance of this little-used word ‘sovereignty.’

Please give the idea your thoughts and prayers.

Bernard Chalumeau’s article:

http://laiglesforum.com/sovereignty-back-to-westphalian-principles/3133.htm

Don Hank  

Using the truth to deceive us

How they deceive us with the truth

 

Don Hank

 

The following is a true account.

In 1964, an athlete in his prime savagely attacked an older, handicapped man with his fists in full view of countless witnesses, causing the victim lacerations under the left eye and severe bruising under the right eye.

The assailant was never arrested but amazingly, the victim was arrested weeks later!

What I have just described is the Cassius Clay-Sonny Liston fight of 1964.  I used a tactic employed daily by media and government, inserting accurate enough details but omitting the most important details that the public would need to assess the situation correctly.

At the time of the fight, Liston was suffering from severe bursitis and at one point could not lift one of his arms beyond waist level. This “handicapped man” was in fact a ruthless ex-con who had learned boxing in prison. Sports reporters considered him the most feared boxer in history. His arrest weeks after the fight was for drunken driving and driving without a license.

Now if reporters had reported this fight as I did above, they would have lost all credibility. Yet in matters of war that cost the lives of young men, they—and their cohorts in politics—report in precisely this manner when describing a supposed enemy in an effort to stir up war from scratch.

After 911 at ground zero, G. W. Bush, his arm draped around the shoulder of a NY fireman, said on live TV, “The people who knocked these buildings down will hear from all of us soon.”

The people responsible were all Saudis, every one, and strong evidence later surfaced that the Saudi government had supported the terrorists. Yet, the people who “heard from” us were the nation of Iraq. Classic bait and switch.

The Kosovo war serves to show how US legal rationale is applied lopsidedely in Ukraine, based on accurate enough details but with the main ones omitted.

The US declared that Russia had no right to intervene to help the Crimeans secede, despite the overwhelming desire of these Russian speaking people to unite with their brothers in the Russian Federation—particularly since they had reason to fear for their safety in a region dominated by anti-Russian Ukrainians, who wanted to deny a nation with a Russian speaking majority the right to speak their language at home. The official US argument was that international law forbids any country to intervene in a secessionist civil conflict.

Yet that stands in direct contradiction to what Bill Clinton did in Kosovo.

The US reasoned during the Kosovo War of 1998-9 that it was legitimate to support Kosovo’s secession from the then sovereign Serbia because the Kosovars supported such—even though the decision to secede was made under a UN administration not elected by Kosovars. The US had done the same thing in Panama, militarily supporting that department’s secession from Colombia.
Yet later, in 2008, the US government later told the Russians that they could not militarily support the secession of South Ossetia because Georgia was a sovereign country (the EU wisely abstained from using the same lopsided logic at the time).
According to US reasoning, what was “legal” in Kosovo and earlier in Panama (secession supported by a foreign power, the US) was illegal in S. Ossetia because the foreign power happened to be Russia in that case. But hatred of Russia could never be a valid legal argument.
This is how the US government makes up international jurisprudence on the fly.
But you can’t have it both ways in law, international or other.
Now the Russians are using the US’s own logic to defend their actions in Crimea. The US government may or may not be correct in their interpretation of international law, but they have no legal authority to oppose what the Russians and Crimeans did because they themselves set the precedent for this kind of action.

A revisit of Kosovo is instructive. Numerous reports show that Western media and the US government brazenly hid important details to present the false picture that only the (Christian) Serbs had committed atrocities, whereas the Kosovars (Muslims), whom we portrayed as the good guys, had perpetrated their share of wholesale atrocities as well.

It would be a stretch to imagine that the Albanian Kosovars, who had committed genocide against Serbs in coordination with the Nazis in WW II, had suddenly become choir boys, as Western media suggested at the time. An article containing a series of gruesome photos of Serbs brutally murdered by Kosovars was published at a Serbian web site, even as Western governments and media were insisting that the Kosovars were the innocent victims. Another report showed that Kosovars killed Serbs for organ harvest.

Lest the reader think the above linked reports were purely anti-US propaganda, even the left leaning Amnesty International (natural allies of Clinton) admitted that the UN unfairly reported exclusively atrocities perpetrated by Serbs, when in fact, the Kosovars had been equally brutal.

Even the elitist CFR admitted Kosovo was a botch-up.

Fast forwarding, a similar false portrait was painted in Ukraine, where the rebels were portrayed as innocent victims, whereas in reality, they had broken into an armory and used rifles to kill the police of a democratically elected government.

Psychologists tell us that single instances of a behavior are not significant in evaluating a patient. But when enough of these instances have been documented, then a behavior pattern is established.

From Panama to Kosovo, from Georgia to Ukraine, from Libya to Egypt, Western governments and their cohorts in media have established a clear cut pattern of one-sided reporting and one-sided interpretation of international law—a pattern that is best described as fraud. It has cost untold human lives and suffering, both to our young sent to war and to the peoples of invaded nations.

It is therefore no less criminal than an overt act of brutality by a tyrant. The overt tyrant commits the atrocities himself.

The deceiving tyrant induces us to commit them.

 

 

Definition drift in the Snowden case

Most Americans still associate the idea of illegal informants or spies with people like the Rosenbergs, who leaked nuclear secrets to the Soviets. Indeed, articles on famous spies before about 1970 show that most high profile cases were working for the Soviets.

Thus, before the 70s, a spy was generally thought of as a person who shared secrets, often military, with a perceived enemy who could be expected to use those secrets to harm America, and the expected or potential harm was usually of a military nature.

Beginning with the Daniel Ellsberg case in 1971, the unofficial definition of “espionage” and “spy” started to shift subliminally in the minds of Americans, along with the unofficial definition of “enemy,” in keeping with the granting of Most Favored Nation status to China. In the broadest terms, the shift could be described as being away from freedom and toward government tyranny.

Of the ten accused informants under this act, none were said to have spied for the Soviet Union, only one, Bradley Manning, allegedly leaked information that may have compromised the safety of American and allied military personnel and one, Jeffrey Sterling, allegedly leaked information about US planned sabotage of the Iranian nuclear program, which could have perhaps enabled the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon somewhat earlier. These three could have arguably compromised our security.

The others, however, disclosed classified details, mostly to reporters, that in the Old America, We the people would have felt entitled to know.

More here:

 http://www.americandailyherald.com/pundits/donald-hank/item/definition-drift-in-the-ed-snowden-case

A day of reckoning is coming

by Don Hank

A recent article by Bob Unruh in WND shows how states are fighting back against federal encroachment – in the case in question, by declaring themselves unwilling to comply with federal detention orders under NDAA. This quiet revolution is merely an extension of other local and state muscle flexing, such as the pushback in Arizona by the state legislature and by Sheriff Arpaio, and the tough anti-invasion law in Alabama.

But I think this could be just the beginning.

The federal government has created a network of vested interests to keep the states in line, all long after the writing of the Federalist Papers and the Constitution, designed to prevent federal abuses. The biggest club they have created is grants to states. Every state gets millions of your and my money, duly shrunken after passing through the sticky fingers of Congress. This money is nothing more than a bribe, a cheap trick to make states grovel and behave like good little slaves. It has worked well thus far. And the money club is not the only weapon in the federal arsenal in its war on the states and the citizens. Obama has shown that states who fail to fall in line behind the dictator in chief don’t get needed non-monetary aid either. Texas, always a renegade stand-alone state, recently watched as its forests were reduced to cinders for lack of much-needed federal help, which eventually arrived after it was rather late.

Arizona saw a lawsuit filed against it by the lawyer in chief, who even went crying to the UN to help subdue the big bad Brewer. And some of the lower southern states found that, after they had sullied Big Daddy Washington, the illegal alien criminals and hit-and-run perps it turned in to ICE were no longer being dealt with. Some came back and killed and raped. That was the states’ payback for not liking the jackboot.

But what if:

What if the states turned the tables on the feds?

I mean, where did this federal money and power come from in the first place?

Why the people of the various and sundry states who pay taxes.

Now, what if the good people of the abused states got together and made a law that prohibited state citizens from paying the entire amount of the federal taxes in those instances when the feds were playing these dirty games? What if they were enjoined to withhold a certain percentage or a set amount corresponding to an estimate of the losses incurred?

What if the states calculated the amount of money it would take to incarcerate lawbreakers who were allowed by the feds to sneak into their state and cause trouble? And what if the states explicitly deducted this amount from the amount their state citizens were bound to pay to the feds?

What if they made it illegal for citizens of that state to pay the federal tax amount that, according to the calculations of the state comptroller generals, was owed them by the feds for dereliction of duty?

Suppose they calculated that X number of illegal aliens had entered their state as a direct result of the federal government’s failure to station an adequate number of border guards and provide them with the necessary equipment and training, and further, as a partial result of their hamstringing them with unreasonable rules of engagement and jailing those who failed to comply with said unreasonable rules.

Suppose they calculated the amount of damage to the state of improperly providing federal aid to people who repeatedly built their homes in areas repeatedly stricken by natural disasters — and then billed the feds for this?

Suppose they calculated the probable number of Mexicans fleeing their homes and entering their state due to AG Holder’s dirty game of Fast and Furious and the amount of money and human life this probably cost in that state?

Suppose they collected this money by the same method, forbidding their citizens to pay this amount to the fed and funneling it to state coffers instead.

And suppose some of the non-border states used a percentage of this money saved to help border states beef up their border security and pay for the detention and return of illegal alien criminals.

And suppose they blew off any unconstitutional and arbitrary federal laws in their state affairs that “prohibited” them from returning illegal aliens on their own? Without the intermediary of ICE, for example. A series of contiguous states could set up a kind of reverse “Underground Railroad” to return criminal aliens to Mexico.

Now, certainly some will say this is carrying things a bit too far.

Oh really?

Did you know what Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution says? Read it for yourself:

 … and [The United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence

The extent of the invasion of Mexican cartels is a well kept secret.

But there are numerous credible reports by people living in the border area showing that some areas are no longer safe for Americans to enter or live.

The Sonoran Desert National Monument in Arizona has areas that are closed off because the cartel has completely taken them over.

These situations fit anyone’s definition of an invasion. And the damage done by Latin gangs and drug dealers everywhere is certainly domestic violence, all traceable to a porous southern border, thanks to a negligent central government itching for a come-uppance.

The US Constitution is a contract between the States and Washington. In all of contract law, there is give and take. (Contracts with only “take” are deemed unlawful, as in the case of prenups). Each of the parties to the contract is both beneficiary and provider of rights. Whenever one party reneges on part of the contract, the counterparty who is hurt by this has a right to deny a corresponding part of its contribution to the bargain.

The states have not reneged in any way. They are a compliant partner. The US government, on the other hand, has completely reneged on parts of its contract — particularly its duty to protect the States against invasion but also with regard to undeclared — and hence unlawful — wars against countries that are not an enemy in any traditionally accepted respect, or the NDAA, which permits the federal government to detain Americans without charges or evidence. It must expect consequences, and if it won’t hold up its part of the agreement, then at least part of the agreement intended to benefit it is null and void by law.

There are 2 main things keeping the States as a counterparty from declaring part of the bargain null and void despite flagrant federal breach of contract:

1—Lack of knowledge of the law and how it applies to the parties.

2—Lack of will.

It is only a matter of time before all the states affected by the Federal government’s failure to perform its duty will understand that they are on the right side of the law and the fed is clearly in non-performance of its contract.

And in our economic crisis, as states find themselves increasingly strapped for cash, laying off employees, halting public works and closing down offices, they will eventually reach a point of desperation when a strategy such as I have outlined above will appear, if not attractive, then at least inevitable.

Newsflash: Robin Hood Steals from Himself to Give to the Poor!

The commandment is:  “Thou shalt not steal.”

Most people believe that this commandment represents sound morality, even if they are not Christians.  Nonetheless, it seems that this moral precept is forgotten once we start talking politics.  And no wonder:  Americans have been making up ‘right and wrong’ for themselves for quite a while.   Obviously it was only a matter of time before it seeped into our national mindset.

A good example of this in action is the current attempt by the Democrats to extend the payroll tax cut, ‘paying for it’ by having the ‘rich’ pay their ‘fair share.’

That we are talking about theft becomes clearer when one considers exactly what the ‘payroll tax’ is.  We are talking about the portion of one’s income that goes directly into Social Security.  Your contributions, in turn, ensure that when you retire, you will be able to draw a steady check.

Now, the liberals tend to target the rich to fund a variety of their favorite programs, and many of those times there ostensibly is some ‘public’ benefit of them.  For example, we might put public infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, in this category.  Usually, though, the program favors smaller, special interest, populations.  The appearance of a socialistic transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor becomes more profound the more targeted the program.

But the funding of the payroll tax cut by the rich really takes the cake.  It is one of those few instances of a government service where the individual directly benefiting from the service is also the one funding it.  Heck, it might be the only example of such a thing.

To have the rich pay for the payroll tax cut is to ask them to directly fund the retirements of the rest of the population, in a direct and transparent manner.  The ‘99%’ are demanding that the ‘1%’ pay for a service that only the ‘99%’ will benefit from, without themselves contributing a dime.  There is no ‘public’ benefit; the ‘special interest’ group just turns out to be exceptionally large.

This is stealing.

Stealing is wrong.

Therefore, this is wrong.

The real kick in the pants here is that while the ‘poor’ and ‘middle class’ are getting behind the highway robbery of their ‘richer’ countrymen, they are actually robbing their future selves.  Since the amount of your contribution is correlated with how much you receive in your retirement account, by continuing to not pay the payroll tax, you are decreasing the amount you will ultimately receive. Continue reading

Snatched Swedish boy may be permanently separated from parents

Officials seek to terminate Johansson family’s parental rights 

Please Write

Both the ADF and HSLDA are asking for letters to be written in an attempt to renew attention to the Johanssons’ case. You can download a sample letter using either format below.

Download the sample letter in Microsoft Word >>

Download the sample letter as a PDF >>
(requires Adobe Acrobat Reader)

HSLDA has learned that Swedish officials on the Island of Gotland may be seeking to terminate the parental rights of Annie and Christer Johansson. Seven-year old Domenic Johansson was snatched by a fully armed Swedish police unit in June 2009 while on board an airplane bound for Annie’s homeland of India. Among the primary reasons given for the seizure was the fact that Domenic was homeschooled. His entire family has been denied any contact with their son for nearly a year. HSLDA and the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) filed a joint application on behalf of the Johansson family at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in June 2010 and have been working to support the family since shortly after Domenic’s seizure.

Both the ADF and HSLDA are asking for letters to be written in an attempt to renew attention to the family’s case and to encourage Swedish officials to release Domenic back to his family. The United States Supreme Court has called the termination of parental rights the family court equivalent of the death penalty. Annie and Christer have done nothing worthy of such a horrific outcome. Will you join us as fellow advocates and take a moment to write to the Swedish Social Services Committee in charge of Domenic’s custody situation? The Johansson family is grateful for your efforts on their behalf. ADF has prepared a sample letter or you may write your own letter to the committee. You can download a copy of the sample letter in Microsoft Word or as a PDF file.

Please mail letters to:

Swedish Social Services Committee
Socialnämnden
Gotlands Kommun
621 81 Visby
SWEDEN

A stamp for a standard weight letter to Sweden will cost $0.98 through the U.S. Postal Service.

Please also continue to keep the Johansson family in your prayers as they somehow endure this unbearable situation.

Our thanks to the HSLDA for this alert: http://hslda.org/hs/international/Sweden/default.asp

Email addresses of Swedish officials in charge of this case (they read English):

sofi.rosenqvist@gotland.se;

caroline.palmqvist@gotland.se;

lena.celion@gotland.se;

marika.gardell@gotland.se;

Building on Cain’s 9-9-9 Plan for Radical Change

The following was posted by Laigle’s Staff writer Anthony Horvath at his blog:

I understand that Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is just phase one in a more powerful overhaul, but I am leery about any plan that cannot be attained within a single term of the presidency.  Moreover, we cannot count on the legislators to get behind it, or sustain it once it gets going.

So that’s a pickle, right?  There pretty much isn’t a plan out there that can be rolled out within a single term with the assurance that the legislative branch will implement it as proposed (and not load it with 2,000 pages of caveats).

So what to do?

Suck it up and vote for Herman Cain.

And consider a different plan that actually tackles these issues head on and effectively ensures that the plan comes to fruition.

The plan is simply this:  deny the Federal government the right to collect individual and corporate taxes, period.  Instead, the Federal government would collect funds from the states.  The states in turn would be in charge of collecting the taxes that would then be sent along to the Federal government.  How the states collect that revenue would be entirely up to each individual state.  Each state would be assigned an ‘amount due’ based on some kind of objective and reasonable criteria, like for example, on a per capita basis and a calculation of that state’s particular burden on the Federal budget.

Read the whole proposal